I can't imagine what it must have been like to write a review for a game that has so many moving pieces (200 units, 20+ buildings, 14 epochs, 5 resources, etc.). It doesn't look like Greg over at Gamespot enjoyed it too much (7.9). I wonder if the game won't take off until there is a large multiplayer community. I have a feeling that I'll buy it, play it to death for a week, and then be sick of it. Overall the game reminds me of the end of Time Bandits, with the cowboys and the knights and the spaceship and the craziness. I read that the 14th epoch has time machines so maybe you can really re-enact that TB scene, with a prophet standing in for David Warner (Evil).

"Overall the game reminds me of the end of Time Bandits, with the cowboys and the knights and the spaceship and the craziness."

Unfortunately, you'll rarely have more than a two epoch difference between units. That would have been amusing, though. In fact, I think I like your game better than Empire Earth. :)

"I read that the 14th epoch has time machines."

One of the advanced units (they're called Cybers) has the ability to send an enemy unit forward in time. The effect is that it removes the unit from the map for a while. Pretty clever trick, actually, but like a lot of stuff in the final epoch, it might require more micromanagement than it's worth.

-Tom

I enjoyed it plenty. A 7.9 is a good, borderline great score from GameSpot. But Empire Earth is a hard-core game best suited for serious AOK players. I'm one of those, but that doesn't mean I'd recommend the game to everyone else.

I think the only thing that really bugged me about Empire Earth was the absense of a market structure. For the life of me, I couldn't understand why the designers opted to complicate the resource model while taking away the ability to compensate for the lack of one with the surplus of another. Late-game in AOK, I'd always be using the market like crazy.

Talk about a tough choice: Battle Realms versus Empire Earth. Kasavin goes with the 8.7 BR versus the 7.9 EE, but I must point out that he has a 9 tilt for BR and an 8 tilt for EE (is tilt worth a whole overall point?).

Somehow I have reversed my original desire for the games: I thought BR looked great so now I'm sure it will disappoint, and I thought EE would be a dumb AoK rip-off and now I think it could be a blast.I can't decide what would be more fun: stringing together the thin Red Line of British soldiers circa the 1700/1800s or replaying 7 Samarai scenes on horses with heroes and special weapons?

About Greg's reviews of these two games: is Gamespot trying to make his head explode by handing him two reviews of pretty time consuming games (EE? come-on!)? How did you swing that Greg?

Empire Earth leaves me totally cold. It feels like an Age Of Empires Construction Kit, combined with an all-you-can-eat buffet. But in 3D!

And it has an interface that only a developer could love.

This game isn't bad, but it has no soul. I'm returning my copy.

Heh, sorry Greg, you beat me to the post.

Battle Realms, without a doubt, is by far the more interesting of the two games. If you've played AOE, you've already played EE.

On the other hand, Battle Realms is almost exactly what I expected Warcraft III to be.

Wumpus, have you played Battle Realms yet? You say you're returning EE? Didn't you just get it today? Don't get me wrong, I've made decisions after 5 minutes of a game on whether I would like it or not.

Rob, to demonstrate that I'm either insane or a hack (or perhaps both), I should point out that, in addition to Battle Realms and Empire Earth, this week we also posted my reviews of Metal Gear Solid 2, Dead or Alive 3, and Capcom vs. SNK 2. Let's say I didn't have much free time this weekend, for anything.

Battle Realms and Empire Earth both took me awhile. But I spent more time working on the MGS2 review than any other I've ever written I think. I take this work upon myself (I edit all of GameSpot's PC reviews) because I enjoy it. Also because I don't like to sleep.

Mathematically, one point of tilt = +0.3 in GameSpot's rating system. Gameplay is weighted equally, then graphics and value are at 0.15, and sound is 0.1.

Yes, I've played both games for several hours. That's just my opinion, of course.

Greg, the EE message board says you are an FPS freak on crack. Is this true? ;-)

If you want a fresh RTS experience, grab Kohan. I haven't played the final version of EE or any version of BR, but you can't go wrong with Kohan.

I just wish Kohan had decent graphics and a well known mythos. The gameplay is great.

Ok, I'm off to see Cake at the Orpheum. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...

Empire Earth was a hard game to review, and even harder for me to actually enjoy, though I imagine those power RTS gamers who'd overrun me routinely at the Zone back when AOK was released are going to absolutely love it. But I pity any casual, or worse, newbie RTS fan who tries to manage it. It's just a big sprawling (though balanced) mess and almost completely lacks a likeable personality. Substituting quantity for manageability.

Anyway, it strikes me that they might have been too concerned with whether or not they *could* handled that much history, and that many units (etc.,) and didn't spend enough time wondering if they should do it. Plus, that AI is maybe too aggressive, even on Easy.

-Andrew

Yeah, Kohan is great, probably better than either EE or BR (though nowhere near as flashy as either game). Kohan makes great strides in unit tactics, which is critical. I can't believe more RTS designers haven't experimented with this stuff-- archers that behave like archers by retreating from direct combat instead of standing there mindlessly firing arrows point blank into a melee unit.. commanders that increase unit intelligence and strategy when they are nearby.. units that automatically know when to use their special powers appropriately, etc etc etc. It's like the damn designers are afraid to make the units too smart. God forbid we be spared one second of micromanagement!

As for Kohan. I can't talk about this game without griping about its critical weakness-- I sorely wish Kohan's designers hadn't thrown nearly all the strategy in the game away, by just *giving* your enemy the cities he attacks instead of destroying them. Cities confer healing benefits (among many others) so the invading army just rolls from city to city, power-levelling up between each one. The strong become stronger syndrome degrades multiplayer to the same old, same old tank rush.

I love it. Any time we give a strategy game below an 8.5, it's because we're FPS freaks. "Obviously," to quote someone using the Internet. By now, those Sierra messageboard guys hate me more than they hate Afghanistan. I'm sure one of them is still fuming over my review of Arcanum. Hell, I practically am.

"I sorely wish Kohan's designers hadn't thrown nearly all the strategy in the game away, by just *giving* your enemy the cities he attacks instead of destroying them."

Yeah, I'd like to see it handled differently too. I think the city should be partially razed when captured and require the new owner to rebuild it before it can add to production. Or something.

As to what Rob said, yeah, I wish it had a more recognizable mythos too. I'm fine with the graphics -- they seem nice enough to me and there's quite a bit of detail, actually.

And the name, Kohan, isn't very exciting either. Seems like a game that could have benefitted from someone with some marketing expertise to help shapte it a bit.

At our hardcore AoE forum, where SSS recruited all their playtesters from, you are getting a royal ripping from the community, Greg. I tried to explain that the review was actually very positive from a hardcore players perspective, but they've gone for the jugular and are raging about the 7.9 score. It's getting a bit hurtful, and Methos of SSS has brought up the GameSpot scores for AoE (6.8 how could you?) and Dark Reign (9.2 Dark What?).

From my brief look at it today, I would say you were pretty spot on, it's far too complicated to have broad appeal, but the AoKers are going to love it, but when GameSpy are giving it 94%, or something, then 7.9 looks miserly.

Tim (aka Gx_Farmer)
http://www.mrfixitonline.com

Bah, hardcore fans will never agree with a review like Greg's. It's too principled and even-handed. Not to mention detailed, good job Greg.

"and Methos of SSS has brought up the GameSpot scores for AoE (6.8 how could you?)"

Bah again. Not "how could Gamespot", but "how could T. Liam McDonald." I still haven't read T. Liam's infamous review of AOE, but responsibility lies with the reviewer, ultimately, and Methos bringing it up like it has something to do with Greg's EE review, which is how it seems framed here, is just a silly red herring.

Note... my "bah" is in general, not necessarily directed at Tim's opinion here.

-Andrew

I know Age of Empires. I played Age of Empires. And you, Empire Earth, are no Age of Empires.

This game does not have broad appeal like AOE did. 7.9 is perfectly appropriate. Hell, just the "requires a 3D card" factor alone guarantees this title won't reach those heights.

Never mind the lame interface and the tedious "if one is good, five must be five times better" approach to design.

6.x is low for AOE, but I remember being really miffed that Steve's outfit gave it a perfect 5 star review. AOE I was good, definitely, but not perfect and without significant flaws. And it'll always be a pale shadow of the game Total Annihilation was, but that's neither here nor there.

You see, Empire Earth goes to 11....

"And it'll always be a pale shadow of the game Total Annihilation was, but that's neither here nor there."

I had a feeling the reason that you didn't like EE was it had more units than your precious TA. It was only a matter of time before it surfaced.

I still think TA was light years ahead of the competition. Even now I would argue nothing has really surpassed TA.

I'd probably vote Starcraft ahead of TA. The strength of TA's rep lies with its multiplayer game. It wasn't a strong single player game.

Starcraft has a great single player game and skirmish mode, and very good multiplayer.

---

Quote:

I think the city should be partially razed when captured and require the new owner to rebuild it before it can add to production. Or something.

---

Oh great, let's start the StarCraft vs. TA debate all over again. Maybe we can make it last longer than the Derek Smart flame wars.

"I just wish Kohan had decent graphics and a well known mythos."

I like the graphics. They are crisp, high-detail, and anti-aliased. It's very colorful, like a miniatures wargame. Get a bunch of units fighting and it looks like a real-time Warhammer battle (or at least what you'd imagine that might look like).

"It's like the damn designers are afraid to make the units too smart. God forbid we be spared one second of micromanagement!"

Yeah, the thing that sticks with me the most about Kohan was that I didn't miss any of the micromanagement. Now I have a hard time playing any game that has it, simply because I know firsthand how unnecessary it is to my enjoyment of the game.

"Yeah, the thing that sticks with me the most about Kohan was that I didn't miss any of the micromanagement. Now I have a hard time playing any game that has it, simply because I know firsthand how unnecessary it is to my enjoyment of the game."

Yeah, I felt this way too. I played the latest Dune RTS right after playing Kohan and it was distracting having to baby-sit all the units.

Oh great, let's start the StarCraft vs. TA debate all over again. Maybe we can make it last longer than the Derek Smart flame wars.

Heh, you say that as if the Derek Smart flame wars were over :)

I think it's time to fire TA back up. Been a long time since I've played an RTS where terrain was actually, well, terrain.

I always loved Starcraft, but TA will always be my RTS of choice. With no physics model, air units that never land, and terrain that is nothing more than a way to stop units from moving (since you can fire through any wall or rock), SC just felt lacking.

One of these days I need to pick up Kohan when it's at $20. Been looking for another good RTS in this time of cookie cutter do nothings. Does Kohan use true LOS and terrain? And does it use heat seeking arrows ala Warcraft II? That always annoyed me too. :)

While many are enjoying Empire Earth as a game, there seems to be much supporting functionality that is either missing or poorly implemented. The forums are already filling up with complaints about sierra net, which seems a poor replacement for microsoft's zone. The worse thing is that it appears that not a single recommendation of the beta testers has been implemented, from the minor micromanagement to the proprietary player match-up system. It's making many of the thousands of beta testers wonder why they bothered, and there's not a little bitterness about this.

On the subject of ignoring beta testers, I'm wondering if Greg, or someone who has the full release of Battle Realms, could answer this question: are the units in Battle Realms still so uncontrollable that they will ignore instructions to join in an attack, and instead attack the nearest enemy object, even if it is an irrelevant building. In the beta the "attack nearest object" stance was a default, and considered by all the beta testers to be a major annoyance. It effected gameplay so much that even the peasants waiting to be trained would chase after enemy raiders or run off to attack nearby buildings, an absolute nightmare if you are outside the enemy base planning a sneak attack. It was so bad I considered it a bug and didn't mention it in my preview of the game.

It seemed from Greg's review of the game that this style of control was still in operation. If that's the case the game is getting crossed off my shopping list.

"Oh great, let's start the StarCraft vs. TA debate all over again. Maybe we can make it last longer than the Derek Smart flame wars."

What debate? There's nothing to debate. TA is a better game than SC.

I pity the poor fools who were so bamboozled by flashy bitmaps and cutscenes that they couldn't appreciate the 99.99% pure gold of TA's gameplay.

Story? Who needs a story when you have the smell of napalm in the morning.

I haven't heard anyone argue the merits of SC vs. TA in a long time, but personally, I think TA is the better game, dollar for dollar.

It's funny. There are all these reader reviews on GameSpot for Empire Earth that reiterate a lot of the same points I make, but then argue that the game should have gotten a 9. We need to change our rating system--people just can't get it through their heads that a 7.9 is a good score.

Tim, the Battle Realms AI is pretty smart, but zealous. If your unit is attacking a building, but an enemy unit shows up, your unit will attack the enemy instead. However, I had trouble pulling my units out of fights, as they seemed to always try to leap back into the fray. Honestly, this didn't really bother me because it seemed well within the context of the game--fighting to the death, and all that.

I never had a problem with getting a unit to attack an enemy troop instead of a building. Like I said, for the most part I found the AI to do a rather good job without any input from me. Healers heal, etc. This may actually contribute to what some players find "boring" about the game. Some like to micromanage, others complain about having to.

It's why rating systems drive me crazy. People will completely agree with everything you write in a review, but fixate on the rating. I know I'm in the minority, but I would love to see ratings thrown out the door. If a review is well written, a rating adds nothing. I can read a review by a good writer such as Bruce Geryk or Tom Chick and cover up the rating number, and I come away knowing everything I need in terms of an evaluation of the game. Greg's review just highlights the point - how many people would be arguing with his review if there was no numeric score attached?

---

Quote:

We need to change our rating system--people just can't get it through their heads that a 7.9 is a good score.

---

Well, I don't mean to brownnose this group, but the people here are more likely to read something than the next guy. The reason GameSpot has a rating system--a prominent one--is because we acknowledge that some people can't be bothered to read 3,000 words on Empire Earth. They want a number and a quote, and we give them that. That's why our rating isn't at the end of the review or anything. Still, it creates some frustration for us, since of course we put more time into the text than into the number.

I envy CGW's five-star system. I think it's intuitive to people, and a three out of five (perhaps equivalent to our 7.0) doesn't seem like such a bad thing.

Anyway, we were talking about Empire Earth. Sorry. Anyone seen the game's cutscenes? They're probably the ugliest thing I've seen in a game all year.

"We need to change our rating system--people just can't get it through their heads that a 7.9 is a good score. "

If I didn't find a page telling me how you rate, how would I know that? I think most people look at scores, and put it into the context that they understand. It might be a-f, or 2 thumbs up, but they like known quantities. So for me, at least, if I see a 7.9 I immediately think "79%. Not quite a B. I'll save my money for an above-average game." I'll also bet some of my money that most of your readers think the same thing. By that logic, I'd wonder about the competence of anyone that gave AOE a 68%. Not even a C. Similarly, if the fans of EE (I haven't played it)think it's a flawed masterpiece (or, just a really good game with a few unfortunate flaws), say a weak A, then a 9 would make sense for what they would think was appropriate.

I realize that you folks probably don't see it that way, but the perception of the audience is the important thing, yes? What singer sang "Do you want to be happy, or do you want to be right?"

"If I didn't find a page telling me how you rate, how would I know that?"
Because underneath any game that gets a score in the 7-range, the word "good" is clearly written underneath the number. That word and the rating are supposed to be associated.

Did I mention Empire Earth's cinematics were ugly? Why is it that every recent RTS game (Myth III, Battle Realms) feels it's necessary to zoom in on its low-poly 3D units to produce ugly-looking cutscenes?

Sounds like they've tweaked it, at least, Greg, even if they haven't fixed it to my liking. That "fight to the death" attitude would include your Samurai racing in to "fight to the death" with enemy peasants, while the enemy army beat the stuffing out of your weaker rear guard, and it would be a struggle to get your samurai back to defend them until they had destroyed each and every one of the peasants. I don't want my units fighting to the death if I want them fighting somewhere else; I want them to do as they are told.

Thanks for the info, maybe I will buy it yet, and then I can at least console myself by writing a scathing review of it if they haven't fixed any of the beta problems...oh no, that would just be spiteful.

Tim.

I liken it to those who like Starcraft over TA like Max Payne over Operation Flashpoint. Or maybe not. Style over substance? or something? Yeah Starcraft was the same game Warcraft was... TA was something new.

Anyway, just my opinion. and i did like SC and MP btw! just like TA and OFP MUCH better... acronyms aye..

etc

Yeah, it's not that Starcraft was bad, it's just that TA was so friggin' amazing. I really don't understand RTS genre fans who didn't appreciate TA.

I hate 10/100 point scales for rating games. I prefer a 5 star system. The implications are just so much different between seeing a three and a half star game and a 7 or a 70% game. 70% is a C- in popular perception but a three and a half star game is a pretty good game with some flaws. I would even consider picking up some 3 star games if I liked the genre but 6 or 60%? Not a chance.

TA was my favorite RTS and I am not a huge RTS fan. I loved the epic battles you could have in that game. It has nice graphics too better looking than SC IMO. I played SC maybe twice before I uninstalled it.

"I really don't understand RTS genre fans who didn't appreciate TA."

Wumpus, I think the one thing that turned some people off to TA was that it really lacked character. At first it was hard to tell the difference between all the units. The units in games like Command & Conquer and Warcraft II were a lot more accessible to people.

Part of the reason people like Starcraft so much is because it has so much personality. Battle Realms achieves this, too, but otherwise it's very rare in RTS games. Of course, having "cool" units is merely an aesthetic thing and pretty much meaningless as far as the gameplay is concerned, but I think the atmosphere of games like Starcraft and Battle Realms is more likely to pull someone in than something like TA.

I love TA, myself. Surprisingly, it's still completely playable. We gave it Game of the Year in '97 over Jedi Knight, the popular choice. I'm actually excited about Dungeon Siege only because Chris Taylor seems to be borrowing a lot of TA's concepts for use in that game.

"I think most people look at scores, and put it into the context that they understand. It might be a-f, or 2 thumbs up, but they like known quantities. So for me, at least, if I see a 7.9 I immediately think "79%. Not quite a B. I'll save my money for an above-average game."

I agree. At the law school I teach at, a 79/100 is a C. And a C average is the minimum the students need to maintain their academic standing. Students who get a 79 on a paper or exam generally are not elated. So even though that 7.9 says "good" underneath, that's not the response a 7.9 generally evokes. There's a disconnect between that score and the description.

The scale GameSpot is using also doesn't seem to be in tune with the site's readers, at least not those who take the time to post their own "reader reviews." Those that think a game is great score it in the 9s, good in the 8s, and so forth. As you would expect.

"So even though that 7.9 says "good" underneath, that's not the response a 7.9 generally evokes. There's a disconnect between that score and the description. "

I think there's a certain degree of irrelevance in it, too. Is anyone in the world going to be more likely to buy a game because it got a 6.8 instead of a 6.7? Not to mention that a lot of any game rating is subjective to the reviewer, so those seem like pretty fine hairs to split to me.

"I think there's a certain degree of irrelevance in it, too. Is anyone in the world going to be more likely to buy a game because it got a 6.8 instead of a 6.7? Not to mention that a lot of any game rating is subjective to the reviewer, so those seem like pretty fine hairs to split to me."

There's a lot of difference between a score in the 7s and one in the 8s though. I can't help but think that a game that scores in the 7s is mediocre. It seems an average score at best, not a "good" score.

As to the rating being subjective, of course. However, that doesn't mean that a lot of readers don't glance at the rating and take it to heart.

"There's a lot of difference between a score in the 7s and one in the 8s though. "

Sure. It's B vs. a C.

"However, that doesn't mean that a lot of readers don't glance at the rating and take it to heart. "

That sounds like the problem Greg is having now. People taking a quick look, not liking the first impression, then being slanted towards seeing bad things in the review based on that first impression.

If you'll excuse a sweeping generalization, I think most people tend to think in absolute terms, and thus have trouble comprehending reviews that aren't entirely positive or entirely negative. Game = awesome or game = crap. Thumbs up or thumbs down. Am I hot or not. People can digest that sort of thing easily.

Our 7-range scores cause confusion. Games that score in this range on GameSpot tend to be mostly good, but not without problems that are serious enough to mention in detail. In the Empire Earth reader reviews, some of the authors seem to just outright hate my guts for giving the game a 7.9. They reiterate my same points (only apologize for them) but give the game a 9.8.

People hate it when a game they like (and paid for) gets criticized. People have written to me asking me why I "slammed" games like Empire Earth and Dead or Alive 3. These letters always disappoint me. I choose my words very carefully so that my reviews don't ever come across as insulting or degrading. But the numbers will cause offense even when the text doesn't.

Anyway--all this feedback is appreciated. I'm fully aware that the fact that so many people seem to get upset over 7-range scores points to a problem with the rating system, rather than with the people. Well, frankly I think it's a little of each, but my responsibility is to try to get a review's point across clearly.

Again, the reason I hate ratings. Greg, you metioned GS's use of the words below the ratings (e.g. "good") If the reason that people insist on ratings is that they have no time to read the review (I have no sympathy for such folks, but call me an elitist,) then why not subsitute a word rating for the score. That eliminates people trying to read more into the rating than is there (is a 7.9 product really better than a 7.7 product?) and ensure accurate communication: if the 7.9 is intended to say "good", then just say "good". If the product is average, say average - etc. This eliminates silly arguments and miscommunications such as those surrounding the EE review.

FWIW

I thought you were spot on with the written review, Greg, however I feel that Empire Earth will prove itself to be the better game in comparison to Battle Realms. In my opinion, although BR has all of the polish, EE just has more playability and better longevity. I had to make myself play BR, but EE I just lost myself in for hours. Then again, I'm a fan of the Age of Empire series, so I'm bound to love it :).

Well, I hope this discussion does precipitate some changes in GameSpot's rating system. Because the current system sucks. Badly.

Stars may be a necessary evil, but floating-point values aren't.

"then why not subsitute a word rating for the score"

Sure Jeff. Hey Greg, here's a suggestion:
Direct Hit, Hit, Miss, Bomb. Problem solved. ;)

-Andrew

Personally, I'm a "rush out and buy it," "only pick it up if you find it on sale and are a big fan of the genre," and "don't touch this with a 10-ft-pole" kinda guy, myself! :-)

"If you'll excuse a sweeping generalization, I think most people tend to think in absolute terms, and thus have trouble comprehending reviews that aren't entirely positive or entirely negative. Game = awesome or game = crap. Thumbs up or thumbs down."

I think you are absolutely right. Because ultimately, the decision that they have to make is binary: play the game, or not? I'd really love to try out a pass/fail (or thumbs up/thumbs down) system for rating games... if nothing else, it might encourage people to actually read the review to get the specifics (which they really should do, anyway).

Ben, Daily Radar actually tried that with its Hit/Miss system. I thought it was a noble idea, but then everything ended up getting a Hit, and some games unfairly received a Miss. The system broke down.

Another real problem is that there are only few big game sites left, but there are a whole lot of fan communities. I have a running joke with some of the other editors. Anytime we give a well-known game less than an 8.0, we get flamed, hard. Every single time. Isn't that a bit odd?

It's because some people like everything. We review games for the masses, not just to their respective fan communities. Our rating system may not be perfect, but it would be even less usefull if all we did was give every game above an 8.0, just to appease some of these people.

I've made similar remarks before, but I didn't write my Empire Earth review for people who have already decided they love the game. I have nothing to offer people like that. The vocal minority uses reviews to validate their own zealous beliefs. But a majority of readers still uses them for the intended purpose of informing themselves on what game to buy.

Yeah, but Hit and Miss has a totally different connotation in people's heads than something like thumbs up/thumbs down. When I say a game is a HIT, you think DIABLO II or QUAKE, something that's so big it can't be contained by mortal men. A game so good it's destined to sell millions...

But thumbs up says to me, "hey, this is good enough to recommend" which is more in line with what I'm looking for in my binary decision making as Ben put it. I like the five-star with halves system. I think that works. But I'd just as easily go with thumbs up/thumbs down. A review I just turned in came down to me thinking "this is an average game...but where do I stand? Is it worth it?" Ultimately, I just said it's average enough to recommend. I would have been ok putting a thumbs up on that one.

--Dave

"Anytime we give a well-known game less than an 8.0, we get flamed, hard. Every single time. Isn't that a bit odd?"

A big part of that is because you equate a score in the 7's as being good while most other people don't consider that to be a good score.

If you removed the score and simply labeled a game between a 7 and 8 as "Good" you'd probably get flamed a lot less.

It's the system, not the evaluation.

Yep. That's why I moved Handheld Computing's rating scale from the 1 to 10 scale I inherited to a five-star system.

People mentally equate a 7.8 with a 78 in school. That's a C, which, unless you're used to making Ds and Fs, is NOT a good grade. You strive for 80 (or 8.0) or above, preferably 90 or above.

Even though a five-star system with half-star increments still gives you 10 rating "notches," it avoids the "school grade" problem. People can "get" that a 3.5 out of 5 is is slightly above average, and 4 is very good. Whereas a 7 is a "C" and an 8 is "just made it to a B, almost got a C" in a lot of folks' heads.

Ok, as Red Leader once said, "Stay on target."

I bought both EE and BR yesterday. My impressions:

EE: I'm blown away with the sheer "stuff" in this game. Its got everything an AOK player could hope for. I've never been one of those, but I'm gonna try and get into this style of game because playing EE seems like so much fun. Its like 10 games in one (but in the long run might seem only like three: before guns, guns, after guns (cyber stuff).

BR: This game is so beautiful. At night when my computer room is dark the game just radiates with rich colors and sounds. I like watching it more than playing it at the moment.

Donno if I'll play either for long, but I'm happy to do my part for the economy.


On another note: Hey Chick, my Pats are gonna hand your Rams a big "L" tonight. Go Tom Brady!

---

Quote:

Ok, as Red Leader once said, "Stay on target."

---

"On another note: Hey Chick, my Pats are gonna hand your Rams a big "L" tonight. Go Tom Brady!"

As someone who doesn't know sports stuff, I have no idea what you're talking about, Rob. I just hope it's not a gay thing.

-Tom

In light of what happened last night, its a gay thing.

I believe the Rams are Mark's team.

BTW, my Dad played in an orchestra hired to entertain the fans at an NFL championship game in which the Rams beat the Redskins by a score of 15-14. It was the 1945 championship game played in Cleveland's League Park. To give you an idea of the state of pro football back then, the Rams moved to LA immediately after that season. Not because of a lack of support in Cleveland, but because the Cleveland Browns had formed in the rival All America Conference and they didn't think they could compete for fans with the roster of college names that the Browns had assembled: Coach Paul Brown, Lou Groza, Otto Graham, etc.

Thanks Jason. However, I will refrain from giving Mark any trouble about said Rams.

"However, I will refrain from giving Mark any trouble about said Rams."

Seems like most of the NFL feels the same way. ;)

"I think you are absolutely right. Because ultimately, the decision that they have to make is binary: play the game, or not? I'd really love to try out a pass/fail (or thumbs up/thumbs down) system for rating games... if nothing else, it might encourage people to actually read the review to get the specifics (which they really should do, anyway). "

Maybe. I've always wondered a bit about the length and depth of game reviews. It seems to me that other things do not get such in-depth coverage. Movie reviews are generally fairly short, the biases of the reviewers often mentioned outright, and then some form of 5 (or less) star rating is given. This board has shown me very clearly that people obsess over movies as well as games, so why are game reviews so picky? Maybe they should be shorter, just covering key aspects of play that recommend or condemn the game in question, followed by the reviewer's slant, and then the rating. Give 'em less to nit-pick, and they'll nit-pick less. It'll also provide an easier way to determine which reviewers are "in synch" with the game-buying populace, because they'll be able to write more reviews.
The game mags could then spend more pages covering things that other niche mags do: conventions, mods, add-ons, bargains, and other useful stuff.
Ya, I know. Just what professional writers wanted to hear. But it's an idea.

Rob, feel free to give me trouble about those 17 points your Patroits scored while giving up 24 to my Rams. Bring it on! :)

I can't be too down on my Pats. The Rams are an unbelievable offensive team, especially that Marshal Faulk. During that last drive the Pats would have stopped any other running back 3 or 4 times. Marshall was having none of that. I haven't seen an RB that dominant since Emmitt Smith in his prime (behind that behemoth and talented line), and that includes Terrel Davis of 3 years ago. But the Pats played tough, and had a good shot at winning this one. The Pats under Tom Brady have been really competitive, and the "Trade Bledsoe" sentiment is thick here in Beantown. Personally, I think Brady will turn into Scott Mitchell if we trade Bledsoe, but maybe thats just me.

I just played a game of Battle Realms and a game of Empire Earth. Its like making origami for an hour, and then turning around and watching the New York Times printing press for an hour. I really like both though. Finding the time to play them is another thing.

Rob, how do Pats fans feel about their head coach? He was unquestionably the most unpopular head coach in the history of the Browns, primarily because he benched Bernie Kosar, probably the most popular athlete in Cleveland history, because Bernie had the nerve to change his play calls.

Bellicheck has two things going for him here in Boston:

1. He has Parcells ties. Even though they probably don't like each other now due to the Jets fiasco, Bellichek still reminds people of how good it was under the Tuna. Parcells is about as popular here as he is in New York.

2. He is winning with a pretty average ball club. We're so starved for a winner here in Boston we'll take .500 as a good sign. I think Bellichek is a great defensive coach, and that plays well here too.

Gosh, Boston is really desperate for a championship calibur team. I love the Celtics, and think they have true talent, but they are far, far away from beating the Lakers (ah the Glory Days). Things got a bit darker here when Duquette announced he was keeping Carl Everett. So in the grand scheme of things Bellichek eeking out a few extra wins looks good to us.

Rob,

I am also a Rams fan (since before they played in the Big A... not at band waggoneer like that Asher fellow - joke!) and have to say that the Pats played a good game Sunday night. You have an interesting situation with two starting quality QBs...sort of like the Rams had last year. It's not necessarily a bad problem to have. Many of the Rams fans are also praising the Pats organization and fans for being good sports, and appreciate that the two teams showed mutual respect. I was disappointed with the sloppiness of the game (the turnovers from both teams) but it was a decent game in the end (however I also thought the Rams should have had more big pass plays with the Pats blitzing as much as they did - you guys were bringing everybody!).

Forgive my ignorance...I've heard Parcells called the Tuna many times now. What's the reason for that (other than the fact that he's a big guy with a tuna-like profile)?

There is a story behind the tuna thing. It might be about the old Charlie the Tuna commericial in the 70s, but I'll have to do a little research to find out.

The Sox are keeping the captain of clubhouse cancer, Carl Everett? My lord, he accounts for 20 lost games a season just by his attitude.

They should trade him off for 2 minor league pitchers and a '79 Pinto.

Here I am in the minority again it seems.

I like Empire Earth a lot. I don't know what the interface gripes are based on; it's got basically the same interface as AoK, and that suits me fine.

I think the graphics, though blocky, are at times really striking, especially in the heat of battle; it's fun to zoom in briefly with the mousewheel as your troops are tearing through the enemy base. As 3D RTS's go, it's not as technically good looking as Ground Control, but it's got a style that appeals to me. I just wish your 20th century resource-gatherers weren't still drawn as guys swinging picks on rock-piles.

Far and away the best epoch, IMHO, is World War II -- or really WWI to Modern, anything with planes, which basically add an additional strategic layer over the standard AoK archers/cavalry/infantry/siege combination. I think the aircraft model (with the rally points, flight times, etc.) is beautifully executed, and it's something to see when you've got 20 odd planes all milling about in the air over a battlefield, impromptu dogfights, B-17's pasting infantry, etc. Other RTS's have had aircraft of some sort (Starcraft for instance), but nothing like this -- not that I've seen, anyway.

I do fear that the "14 epochs" thing is really just a gimmick. Certain epochs are a lot more fun to play than others, and few people are going to bother going from Prehistoric all the way up to Nano. I found Prehistoric pretty boring; it boils down to Priestwars plus a few rock throwers.

So it's probably true that the "size matters" approach to EE was ill-advised, but I think if you take the 3 Atomic Era epochs by themselves, you still have a quality RTS that will keep strategy gamers busy for some time.

"I can't be too down on my Pats."

Yeah, they played well. I don't think the game was quite as close as the score indicated, but it was competitive.

I wonder if they'll be able to trade Bledsoe? He has that fat contract. He might have to agree to restructure it before a team will trade for him.

>>The Sox are keeping the captain of clubhouse cancer, Carl Everett?

It's just a ploy to try to keep them from appearing desperate to unload him, thereby keeping his value up. He's gone, assuming someone will take him.